DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ERNAKULAM

 Dated this the 29^th day of October  2024

Filed on: 28.01.2023

PRESENT

Shri. D.B. Binu                                                                               Hon’ble President

Shri. V. Ramachandran                                                              Hon’ble Member

Smt. Sreevidhia T.N                                                                     Hon’ble Member

C.C. No. 64/2023

COMPLAINANT

Hanna K.I, aged 21 years, D/o Ibrahim Kutty KK, Kunnath House, 106, Ward-1, Aluva, Pin- 683 101

V/s

OPPOSITE PARTIY

Splash, Opposite St. Xavier’s College, Palace Road, Aluva, Pin- 683 101

(OP Rep. By Adv. Ajwin P Lalson, M/s Karukapadath Law Chambers, 1^st Floor, Empire Building, East of Kerala High Court, Opp. Central Police Station, Ernakulam – 682 018)

FINAL ORDER

Sreevidhia T.N., Member:

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The Complainant is a consumer who bought dress materials for Rs.3,380/- from the opposite party on 10/01/2023 and handed over the dress materials to the opposite party for stitching a churidar on the same day.  The churidar was collected from the opposite party and the complainant had used the churidar on 16/01/2023 and had washed it and the colour of the churidar became faded within a few days from the date of purchase.  The complainant had approached the opposite party directly and informed the matter to the opposite party on 18/01/2023 itself.  The staff of the opposite party misbehaved with the complainant.  The complainant states that the opposite party has not provided any bill to the complainant at the time of purchase.  When the matter was brought to the notice of opposite party, the opposite party had subsequently issued a bill as per the date of purchase. The complainant also states that the opposite party had also subsequently added the words “dry wash only” in the bill.

The complainant had approached the Commission seeking redressal of her grievances and to get orders directing the opposite party either to exchange the old material with a new one or to refund its price.

2. NOTICE:

Notice was issued to the opposite party from this Commission on 06/02/2023 and the case posted for return of notice of the opposite party to 20/02/2023.

On 20/02/2023, opposite party appeared and he matter posted for settlement to 24/02/2023.

On 24/02/2023, matter  not settled at the adalath and opposite party is directed to file version within 30 days from the date of acceptance of notice.  Opposite party seen served on 10/02/2023.

On 11/05/2023, when the case was taken on file, version is seen filed by the opposite party on 10/04/2023 and the case posted for evidence of the complainant.

3. Evidence:

Evidence in this case consists of the proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidence filed by the complainant which was marked as Exhibit A1.

Opposite party also filed proof affidavit and two documents also filed by the opposite party on 18/10/2023.

On 03/01/2024, complainant filed I.A 05/2024 for re-opening the evidence of the complainant.  I.A 05/2024 heard and allowed.  Complainant has produced additional documents.  Exhibit A1 invoice  and Exhibit  A2 series also marked.

On verification of the records it is seen that opposite party filed version on 10/04/2023.  Opposite party served on 10/02/2023. Statutory period to file the version of opposite party was expired on 10/03/2023.  30+15 days condonable period also expired on 25/03/2023.  Hence the version filed by the opposite party on 10/04/2023 can’t accept on the files and hence opposite party was set ex-parte on 30/08/2024.

Opposite party  filed argument notes.  Heard both parties.  

4. The issues taken for consideration in this case are as follows.

i)         Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of opposite parties towards the complainant?

ii)        If so, reliefs and cost?

The case of the complainant is that the dress purchased by the complainant from  the opposite party was of inferior quality and the opposite party has not issued a bill at the time of purchase.

The complainant has produced two documents.  Exhibit A1 is the purchase bill of the dress materials.  The complainant has purchased the dress material for Rs. 2,350/-.  Exhibit A2(Series) are the  transcript of the phone conversation  made by the complainant with opposite party.   The complainant has also produced a pen drive evidencing these conversations.

We have thoroughly perused the facts of the case, proof affidavit filed by the complainant and the documentary evidence filed by the complainant.   The complainant’s case is that the bill issued by the opposite party is a subsequently provided one and the dress material supplied by the opposite party became faded after its first use.

The opposite party appeared before the commission on 24/02/2023 but version filed on 10/04/2023.  Hence can’t accept and consequently set as ex-parte in the case.

Being   ex-parte, the documents filed along with the version of the opposite party can’t be taken into consideration.  The contentions raised by the complainant stands unchallengeable before this commission.     After serving notice on 10/04/2022, opposite party filed their version not within the 30+15 days’ time period.   Being ex-parte no contra evidence adduced by the opposite party.  Since no contra evidence produced by the opposite party, the contentions raised by the complainant stands unchallengeable and hence we are of the opinion that the complainant has suffered deficiency from the side of the opposite party.  The Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in its Order dated 09/10/2017 in RP No. 579/2017 (2017(4) C.P.R 590)  also held a similar stance.  The opposite party is not interested to provide another dress material to the complainant even though the churidar became faded after its first use on 16/01/2023, which is within a few days from the date of purchase.  Hence the complainant has suffered mental agony, pain and other difficulties due to the deficient act of the opposite party.  The complainant is eligible to get compensation from the opposite party.  She is also entitled to get cost of proceedings from the opposite party.   We are of the opinion that the complainant is liable to be allowed in part and the following orders are hereby passed.

ORDER

1. The Opposite Party shall pay a compensation of Rs. 2,000/-  (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant due to the negligence and deficiency in service from their part.
2. The Opposite Party shall pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) to the complainant as cost of proceedings of this case.

          The  above order shall be comply by the opposite party within 45 days from the date of order till the date of realization.

Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 29^th day of October  2024

Sd/-

D.B. Binu, President

Sd/-

V. Ramachandran, Member

Sd/-

Sreevidhia T.N, Member

Forwarded/By Order,

                                        Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s Evidence

Exhibit A1                :         Copy of  purchase bill of the dress materials.

Exhibit A2(Series):        Transcript of the phone conversation  made by the

complainant with opposite party.  

Opposite party’s evidence

NIL

Despatch date:

By hand: 

By post:       

AKR/

Order in CC No. 64/2023

Date: 29/10/2024